Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gibson, 44 P.3d 1001.

72 citing documents.

State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Bigger 254 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. MacHado 246 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2011
State v. MacHado 246 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2011
But in State v. Gibson, without mentioning Rule 404(b) or Tankersley, we held that “Rules 401, 402, and 403, Arizona Rules of Evidence, set forth the proper test for determining the admissibility of third-party culpability evidence.” ¶ 19
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. 212 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Hudgins v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. 212 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Shotwell v. Donahoe 85 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2004
Shotwell v. Donahoe 85 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2004
¶34 A proper Rule 403 balancing of probative value and prejudicial effect begins with a proper assessment of the “probative value of the evidence on the issue for which it is offered.” ¶ 17, (quoting Joseph M. Livermore et.
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
-24, ¶¶ 12-19 , -04 (2002).
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
-24, ¶¶ 15-16 , -04 (2002).
State v. Davis 68 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Davis 68 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
¶22 Defendant maintains that the trial court’s , regarding the “relevance test” for the admissibility of such evidence and, therefore, erroneous.
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
Explained State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
Recently, , we clarified the appropriate standard to be applied in determining admissibility of third-party culpability evidence.
State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
Explained State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
¶22 P.3d 1001 (2002), we clarified the rule, holding that a special, higher standard of admissibility for third party culpability evidence was not the intention of Fulminante.